Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bravo, that is... I mean, for illustration of libertarian* grievance, you're giving Jim Bishop a run for his money there, jetgraphics.
I still think, though, that first of all, it is not the slippery slope to absolute government control to borrow tools from socialism's playbook to implement in a nation that still holds many of the features of a democratic republic and a capitalist economy.
Coexistence of socialism and (real) capitalism is impossible.
Real capitalism recognizes that individuals can ABSOLUTELY OWN private property.
Socialism (and all other collectivist systems) abolish private property, and replace it with qualified ownership of estate ("real estate").
. . . .
Furthermore, the U.S. constitution guarantees a republican form to the states (Art. 4, Sec. 4). But the constitution didn't create nor establish the republican form.
A democratic republic is anathema to a republican form.
In any democracy, a majority can override the minority, by law.
In a republican form, an individual sovereign is a "majority" of one, and no servant government can tax, regulate nor trespass his endowed rights.
*For the record, Libertarians are clueless. In the Libertarian Party platform, they seek to enact legislation to grant themselves "sovereign" rights. But to participate in the democracy requires surrendering all endowed rights and thus sovereignty. It's like volunteering to go to prison in order to be free.
= = = = = CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)
But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry. Why? Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority.
Now you have to ask the government to explain exactly from whom did they get the delegated power to impose citizenship upon infants who cannot consent, and thus via mandatory civic duties, ABROGATE THE ENDOWED RIGHTS that governments were instituted to secure.
. . .
All of the institutions are there primarily for the people at the head of them. It's a pyramid. The justice system, gambling casinos, schools, hospitals, government, churches, charities, primarily are there for those at the top of them, then to varying degrees for those making a living from it.
So, given that every society in the history of the human race have had class differences, what are we supposed to do about it?
Marx tried to change it through political revolutions, but that went nowhere. So, what's next?
Pass some of your smarts onto the rentiers.
Your kids inheriting your wealth could very be squandered..
The reason is many kids today don't care about their parents and are proud to not have a moral compass.
What will American society look like,? As you said the haves and have nots is the future; ever visit South America?
That's your class system at its best and what this country will be; A bunch of corrupt politicians, outrageous heinous crimes, lots of petty thefts, homeless or a large population living in poverty with govt. susbsidies.
The positive is housing was (or still is) cheap down there. I haven't visited for 10 years so I'm not sure if it's still cheap but I saw signs of makeshift cardboard homes in major U.S. cities when I came back. I asked myself are we really a first world country?
I don't believe much of what you just wrote - likely no one else does either.
The people who live this reality certainly believe it. As I said, climb out of your ivory tower and ASK them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobspez
Much of what you say is true but only for very few people.
I don't know and have never known anyone who was homeless. I don't even know anyone who ever knew anyone who was homeless. I have relatives who were on welfare, and one who was a heroin addict, and a neighbor who rented a room to someone who was a former heroin addict, but none of them were homeless. The safety net works for almost everyone. Out of 329 million Americans half a million are homeless on any given night. That's about 1/6th of 1 percent of the population.
Medicare and Medicaid also provides a much needed safety net. If you can afford good health insurance you are protected against financial ruin due to medical costs. It's not saying how good the medical care will be no matter how much you pay. That's another issue. But if you can't afford medical insurance or care there are ways and places to get care for almost everyone.
The higher education system has always been a means of limiting access to better paying jobs. And the job system has always been a tough entry for people with no connections or money. With a degree and a lot of effort you can start at the bottom and work your way up. It was like that 50 years ago and is like that today.
As far as college debt, you can live at home and work part time in the school year and full time in the summer and attend any public college in the country and have a student loan balance less than a new car loan, with at least 10 years to pay it off. It has been true for me, my son and daughters and my grandson. Anyone who pays student loans for years and still owes as much or more than they started with selected an interest only loan and/or missed payments, because the interest continues to accrue on the unpaid balance. The same with people who had interest only mortgages and then were underwater for years when the housing market crashed in 2007. The same with people who make minimum payments on credit cards and wind up paying triple what the items originally cost.
Home ownership has always been a tough entry for people at the bottom. My father bought his first house when he was 49 years old. Out of my 5 cousins in their 60's and 70's, only one owns a house. I bought our first house when I was 38 years old. My oldest daughter bought her first house at 45. Many people lived as renters for years to save up for a down payment. Many are still renting.
Working conditions are no worse than they ever were. People in the 30's couldn't find a job and were on bread lines. Social Security was invented. In the 40's young men fought a war and when they came home they faced a housing shortage and shortage of jobs. In the 60's there was a war on poverty and a welfare system bloomed and Medicare was created. You have always had to hustle to get your foot in the door for a decent job and you still do.
I think you have a picture of the past that maybe came from TV shows and movies. And a picture of the future from sensational news stories of looting and anarchy that affect hundreds or at most thousands out of hundreds of millions of people. The sky isn't falling. But most people still have to do their best work for years to get what they want.
Congratulations. You now know someone who was homeless. I lived in my truck for 6 years from 1989 to 1995. Most people who are working won't talk about it much but if you ask, you'd be surprised at how many people have been or are homeless yet working full time. As someone said, $12 an hour doesn't cut it when rents are $1200 a month.
I left home when I was 17 and I was working full time supporting myself and going to school full time trying to graduate high school. I wish now I had kept on and gone to college when it was free in California, but other circumstances interfered. Like a lot of young people, there was no living at home and saving money while going to college.
Consider the fact that there are over 400,000 kids in foster care. Many of them end up on the street when they're 18. These are kids that deserve a chance but we're wasting them and their talents by simply saying the system will take care of them. Sometimes it does, a lot of times it doesn't.
"The higher education system has always been a means of limiting access to better paying jobs."
And why is this acceptable? These are people who, with access to higher education, could work at higher paid jobs and then pay more taxes. I don't understand why people complain about the taxes they pay and then refuse to acknowledge that if there were more people paying higher taxes, their share might be less. And more people working at higher paid jobs are fewer people being supported by the system. That's got to be better than what we have now.
More money earned is more money spread throughout the community. We're a capitalistic society. Money has to circulate to keep our society going. 37.1% of households in the US in 2019 spent more than 30% of their pay on rent.
I think when it comes to buying a house, you need to sit down and figure out how many years of your salary are going to pay for your house. My parents struggled paying $15,000 for their first house. They had a 30 year loan and a $75/mo payment. But my dad could have paid that house off in 1 1/2 years at his salary then.
If someone makes $100,000/year (which is $52/hr) today and buys a house in my neighborhood ($429,000), it would take more than 4 years to pay that off. And $52/hr is a long way from $7.25/hr.
You might also consider the minimum wage compared to today's economy: "Though the minimum wage has been raised more than 20 times over the decades, it has not kept pace with inflation and the cost of living in many places across the U.S. That means that although wages were generally higher, workers were able to afford less when paid at that rate. This is clear when you adjust the minimum wage each year to February 2021 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. When adjusted for inflation, the "best" the minimum wage has ever been was in 1968. Though it was $1.60 an hour, today, that's the equivalent of more than $12 an hour."
I'm not saying people can't be helped out by the system. What I'm questioning is why we continue to allow the "system" to be their support system when we could be doing something else like supporting free college education or funding trade schools so people can use these means to get ahead. We complain but will continue to fund welfare but we don't want to fund free college which will end up being so much more beneficial and cost effective in the long run.
Do we like to see people struggling in poverty because it makes us feel so much better about ourselves compared to how we live?
irf you're a loser in a capitalist society, you'll be a loser in a socialist society too.
Not necessarily. Witness the distinction between the so-called "book smarts" and "street smarts". In a socialist society, a person of impressive conceptual intelligence, but zero practical skills or people-skills, may stlll live in modest (if unassuming) comfort. Think of chess players or mathematicians. In a capitalist society, such a person would be lucky to stock shelves at Wal-Mart or to pour coffee at Starbucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Real capitalism recognizes that individuals can ABSOLUTELY OWN private property.
. . .
Real capitalism has never happened, and never will!
All property-ownership is absolutely and universally contingent "the authorities" deigning to allow said ownership. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is the number of people who get to participate in the decision-making process, for who gets allowed to own what, in exchange for what tax. If for some transient reason such authority is absent, very soon the vacuum will be filled, either by a tribal leader, or a gangster, or the army, a king, maybe evena parliament. Regardless, taxes will be levied, and a police raised, to enforce the tax-payment. No payment --> confiscation.
In a constitutional republic, there are formal laws stating what the police can do, how taxes are levied, and what are the penalties if the taxes aren't paid. These laws are openly deliberated, formally signed into law, and can be challenged in the courts. But however open or fair the laws may be, they will still extract a tax from property owners. They will still limit how you may use your property. They will still codify how you can sell or buy or bequeath your property.
Do we like to see people struggling in poverty because it makes us feel so much better about ourselves compared to how we live?
Uh...what?
I like to keep the money I worked hard to earn and that I'm entitled to (because I EARNED it) in my own pocket, and to decide where it gets spent. It has nothing to do with feeling better about myself.
Start cutting checks to help people struggling in poverty if you so wish. Literally nothing on Earth is stopping you from doing that.
The people who live this reality certainly believe it. As I said, climb out of your ivory tower and ASK them.
Most of your examples above are made up or wildly exaggerated. You know as much. The bits about "perfect credit required" for some government job and wholesale mass firings before bonuses are bogus.
...At the other end of the spectrum is socialist Sweden, without such extremes in income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV
...But remember that "socialist" Sweden is only socialist in that they have high taxes and a strong social safety net; that is to say, not very socialist. They aren't socialist in the sense that they have free enterprise, private ownership, etc. There are plenty of Swedish billionaires, a LOT considering they're a small country.
Sweden did flirt with lower-performing socialism for a while. Sweden’s experiment with socialist policies was disastrous, and its economic success in recent decades is a result of market-based reforms.
Until the mid-20th century, Sweden pursued highly competitive market-based policies. By 1970 Sweden achieved the world’s fourth-highest per capita income. Then increasingly radical Social Democratic governments raised taxes, spending and regulation much more than any other Western European country. Economic performance sputtered. By the early 1990s, Sweden’s per capita income ranking had dropped like a stone all the way down to 14th. Economic growth from 1970 to the early 1990s was roughly 1 percentage point lower than in Europe and 2 points lower than in the U.S.
Before its socialist experiment, Sweden had a smaller government sector than the U.S. By the early 1990s, government spending and transfer payments ballooned to 70% of Sweden's GDP, and debt had increased to 80% of GDP. Between 1966 and 1974, Sweden lost some 400,000 private jobs—proportionate to a hypothetical loss of 16.7 million jobs in today’s U.S.
In 1991 a market-oriented government came to power and undertook far-reaching reforms. Policy makers have privatized parts of the health-care system, introduced for-profit schools along with school vouchers, and reduced welfare benefits. Since 1997, government ministries that propose new spending plans have been required to find offsetting cuts in their budgets. As a result, public debt has declined from 80% of GDP in the early 1990s to about 41% today.
To increase incentives to work, Sweden reduced unemployment benefits and introduced an earned-income tax credit in 2007. The electricity and transportation industries were deregulated in the 1990s, and even the Swedish postal system was opened up to competition in 1993. Sweden's corporate tax rate was cut from its 2009 level of 28% to 22% today, and is scheduled to decline to 20.4% in 2021.
Since Sweden stepped away from its socialist experiment and returned to a more market-oriented economy, Swedish economic growth has exceeded that of its European Union peers by about 1 point a year. Sweden is now richer than all of the major EU countries and is within 15% of U.S. per capita GDP. While Sweden still has a larger government than the U.S., its tax code is flatter.
Most of your examples above are made up or wildly exaggerated. You know as much. The bits about "perfect credit required" for some government job and wholesale mass firings before bonuses are bogus.
If you applied for a job as a toll taker on the Tacoma Narrows bridge, you would have to have perfect credit. That's exactly what they stated in their job ad when I read it.
Did you know the Washington state governor signed a bill into law making it easier for businesses to do credit checks on potential employees?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
